This is a dumb perspective. If one adopts this perspective he will not believe in vaccines, quantum theory or behavioral economics (or a round earth for that matter).
True Emunah Chachamim is believing when a smart person says something its worth investigating, even mormonism.
My BS meter knows extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, regardless of how smart the person is who believes the extraordinary claim. Vaccines, quantum theory and behavioral economics are extraordinary claims but they also have extraordinary evidence which is why I instinctively know they're true.
Derech agav, your version of emunas chachamim sounds a lot like the appeal to authority fallacy.
I think you're missing my point. I don't think you instinctively know something that requires extraordinary evidence. I think many people, including myself, can instinctively recognize when an extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence like the earth spinning and revolving around the sun, and should be accepted. They can also recognize when an extraordinary claim does not have extraordinary evidence like Joseph Smith meeting Moroni in the forest of upstate NY, or Jesus rising from the dead, and should be rejected.
I don't get this. You presumably believe that because of your trust in the scientists. Let's suppose you didn't trust the scientists. You claim you'd know there's ton of evidence without the slightest clue what this evidence is even without trusting scientists?
I like how you so clearly stated that those who are outsiders immediately laugh at foreign god apologetics. Reminds me of when Sam Harris was using Poseidon as a foil to mock religion, only to receive hate mail from people upset at him for blaspheming Poseidon.
But I'm with Ash here that going with your gut is also not a good way to determine truth. Type 1 and type 2 errors require more than authority to identify, but also more than one's intuition.
I trust my own investigation less than I trust consensus of experts a lot of the time. the amount of knowledge i need to know to have an informed opinion about a lot of topics is so large that I am always reasonably concerned that I’m missing something
Yeah I was just responding to this little side thread about investigating my own claims. I don’t even view trusting experts as a heuristic, rather the best epistemological tool I have.
Absolutely. Of what vialue is your belief on anything.You go with the flow intil your dead,injured,broke etc..It might seem easier but your like a flower in the wind with no content. Remind me of a cow
You're comparing things for which we have good evidence to things for which we have bad evidence. Skepticism is like reason. You can never be too reasonable and you can never be too skeptical, because it's defines as "applying sufficient reasonable demand for evidence when it's warranted."
So it's not warranted to question the findings of science like it is to question the "findings" of a rabbi. There's nothing to observe about religion, so what are we measuring and what are we finding? The rules are made up and the game is made up, but in science, the findings are real and repeatable.
I think we'd both agree to that. The issue is the conclusion - because Science does not work by religion hence religion is untrue. If religion is tapping into some sort of spiritual dimension, then you would not expect science to be able to measure it. Just because science cannot measure something beyond it's realm doesn't mean said thing doesn't exist. And the preponderance of evidence from this believing in religion and reaching that realm suggests that it does.
>>>If religion is tapping into some sort of spiritual dimension, then you would not expect science to be able to measure it.
You say this, and it's a good point. I hear it from the side of religion and it's important that no one thinks that science just ignores this question. But there's a very good answer.
If you can't measure it, how do you know it's there? This is the exact same as saying that we need to bury people with money or else they won't be able to cross the bridge to the next world. And they will also need a coat because it gets chilly up in heaven with all that drop in air pressure. And a dog, because they'll need something to guard and protect them from the heavenly marauders who seek to mess around with them while waiting in line to cross the bridge, etc. You're jumping too quickly to responding to the claim (as though it boasts substance) rather than evaluating the claim to see if it has any merit whatsoever.
It may seem very convincing to say that there's just something that we can't measure but we also can't prove it's not there and so let's just do this so we'll be safe in case it is true. That works when one has been raised only in Orthodox Judaism and knows only Orthodox Judaism. But when you learn about all the other nonsense religions, you learn that to be safe from all the what-abouts you can list would mean to do so many countless things, and no one seems to be concerned about fulfilling the rules and guidelines of the Maori other than the Maori. No one is concerned about the nonsense future world concerns of the Cherokee. This amounts to a simple case of denominator neglect.
I think it's quite bizarre to refer to anything in religion as "a preponderance of evidence." Rather, there's essentially no evidence at all. It's all just people gripping so tightly to the stories they so much want to be true.
Besides for your main point I think this is touching on a nekudah that helps explain something important, people who had significant negative experiences from their participation in the community find it much easier to reach this madragah. Which explains why people who have trauma are far more likely to leave. Their trauma does not cause them to have doubts about the age of the universe, it allows them to have a kefirah pashuta
I notice both aspects in myself. As far as my actions are concerned, I have reached the "madregah" of "kefira peshuta" which might be a result of the dysfunction Judaism caused me. In my mind however, I have not gotten to that level of completer closure.
Don’t worry, you could still get there. I always admired my Sphardi neighbours for their emunah peshuta, and by now, some of it has rubbed off on me. However, some of their kids go OTD anyway. So watch out. Your kids could become serious BT’s, just to rebel.
Beautiful. I think you’re hitting on something central here which is why I see you’ve immediately touched a nerve.
We were davka taught to not trust our intuition. It was in the same category as sexual desire… something to be conquered by the mind. The mind was something they could control. As long as they could convince you to ignore your heart (which unfortunately is done using fear and shame - that’s where the abuse happens), they could keep you playing in their mental arena, where the burden is on you to disprove their truth claim and way of life.
Don’t need to disprove anything once you’ve conquered the fear and shame program and accepted the social consequences, you’re free. No burden. Porek ol…. deep breath of freedom. Not ironic that that’s the biggest sin and comes with the biggest social price. 😉
This reminds me of Woody Allen's memorable line: “There’s no way to prove that there is no God. You just have to take it on faith.”.
Btw, for clarification, are you referring to the Torah's miracle claims? Chazal's take? The ritual requirements? Its ethical system? All of revelation? God Himself?
I'm honestly not sure as I can't fully get into the mind of kefirah peshuta. My brain is still wired to go through everything written about each claim and the back and forth and everything. If you're asking what I personally believe that's a different question but I didn't get to my beliefs through instinct but through hours upon hours of reading and pondering.
I appreciate this perspective. However, I disagree. I don't think out instinct/gut is reliable enough. We should at least to a basic research into basic ideas of episemology to where we can justify our position when the consequences are so important.
I actually have told me frum friends for years, even when I was frum, that it would be silly to not even look at Christainity since so many brilliant mids believe in its truth claims. That doesn't mean you need learn everything about it. But at least research the main arguments for it and reflect on your opinion about it.
To justify a major life decision by just trusting your gut seems silly to me. But maybe your gut has proven to be more reliable than my gut has shown to me.
It's super intuitive that there is a G-d, a meaning to life and life after death, which is why religion has been practically a universal part of human civilization for millennia. It is very unnatural to reject these, which is why atheist philosophy relies on excessive rationalization of everything in life and scientism rather than "kefira peshuta".
I don't think the Torah itself shares your intuition that life has ultimate meaning.
Although I haven't learned in a while, I don't remember a universal statement about the meaning of life. While the Torah contains laws, narratives, and a covenant between God and Israel, these primarily focus on obedience, blessings, and avoiding punishment. The idea of a "relationship with God" is often framed in terms of following commandments to gain divine favor or avert curses. If the purpose of life is simply to obey God for protection or rewards, it reduces meaning to a transactional arrangement, not something inherently valuable.
I am aware that the oral law and Kabbalah do speak about this. But I guess we have to add this to the list of foundational ideas that the Chumash "forgot" to mention.
Even if one argues that having a relationship with God is meaningful, we must ask: why is that meaningful beyond the promised benefits or avoiding suffering? Without these incentives, the relationship lacks intrinsic appeal. This suggests that any "meaning" derived from the Torah is ultimately rooted in securing physical pleasure, other-worldly orgasmic spiritual pleasure, safety, or avoidance of harm—concepts that really align well with the atheistic framework Sam Harris outlines in his book, "The Moral Landscape", where morality and purpose are grounded in well-being. If that's the case, the Torah doesn't offer unique meaning but instead provides a historical, culturally specific pathway to what is essentially a universal human desire for security and pleasure.
The intuition is that there is meaning beyond pain and pleasure. This is the clear implication everywhere in the Torah, starting from Bereishis when G-d says נעשה אדם בצלמינו, and in which the entire Creation is implied to be for humanity. This theme continues with the special relationship between G-d and the Avos, and then their descendants, Yisrael, who G-d forges an eternal covenant with to be a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. All the reward and punishment in the Torah is in the context of this relationship.
Even if the entire creation is for humanity, that alone does not reveal the meaning or purpose of living as a human. The relationship, covenant, and designation of being a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש merely define a special connection between God and Israel, distinguishing them from other nations with their own deities. Nowhere in the Torah, however, is the ultimate point or purpose of this relationship made explicit. The Torah describes roles and responsibilities but stops short of addressing the "why" of existence.
Furthermore, claiming there is meaning beyond pain and pleasure leads to an infinite regress: if the purpose of life is something beyond well-being, we must then ask why that purpose is meaningful, and so on without end. This is why Sam Harris’s view that life’s purpose is rooted in well-being—maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering which are real tangible experiences—resonates. Even intuitions about accomplishment and productivity are tied to the sense of satisfaction or fulfillment they bring, which are ultimately forms of pleasure.
The real reason the Chumash doesn’t explicitly address these philosophical questions about life’s purpose is likely historical. Its authors lived in a time where survival and securing basic necessities were paramount, leaving little space to contemplate abstract ideas about meaning. The concept of searching for meaning emerged much later with Greek philosophy, which is why the first book in the Tanach to grapple with such existential questions is Koheles, written after exposure to Greek thought and not, as tradition suggests, by Shlomo.
If you're judging from history, it seems far more intuitive that there are multiple Gods with human tendencies and failings, which is still the position of Hinduism, the world's third largest religion. I don't why you choose your version of God.
But I think even by today's standard your intuition is off.
Many people have an intuition that there is SOMETHING beyond time and space which science can't explain. But the essence of that thing is totally unknown.
Correct, multiple gods with human failings is far more intuitive than atheism. It might even be more intuitive than monotheism, if we were going by "kefira peshuta" alone, which the OP favors.
Your version of God is not intuitive at all. And if you remember your Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam says that understanding your version of God is so unintuitive that even Moshe and Shlomo had no more understanding of it than the most foolish of fools.
He's not saying the existence of G-d is unintuitive. He's not even saying that polytheism is more intuitive (although that's likely). He's *definitely* not saying that atheism is more intuitive. He's saying the nature of G-d is unintuitive.
If by God you mean absolutely simple divine unity where God's willpower is identical to his knowledge I think very few people would find that intuitive at all and would find it very difficult to even comprehend.
I think secular Buddhism is a pretty recent thing that is happening alongside growing secularism in general. I bet 100 years ago most Buddhists believed in G-d.
You can be a Kofer while believing in God, in a meaning to life, and life after death. In fact, I believe in God, and yes I believe in a meaning of life. There is no contradiction to science or philosophy that denies ancient written sources. I don't believe in the stories said about Romulus and Remus, even though I'm not expert in them. I have Kefirah Peshuta that a man didn't fly up to heaven in a whirlwind during a public gathering. I have Kefira Peshuta that in 34 CE, the Native Americans didn't see Jesus as described in the book of Mormon. The same is for the Irish myths of their origns of wars with divine beings, and the Sumerians who thought their ealierst kings ruled for tens of thousands of years. I don't believe the Aztecs heard the voice of their god address them, not did they all see the vision of whiteness at Tenochtitlan. Obviously myth and legend developed from something real, and we can find kernels of historical truth in these stories, But ultimately, Kefira Peshuta works.
"I don’t feel the need to research the back-and-forth about every religion. I don’t need to study the best proofs for Christianity and then weigh the counterarguments. I just know — instinctively — that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and isn’t the son of God. I don’t need to read about the historical evidence for the resurrection or the apologetics of C.S. Lewis to reject Christianity. My gut tells me it’s not true, and that’s enough."
There's only two other religions that say you're damned if you don't believe them. It's only 2 more to research. Let's say you devote 6 months, 10 hours a week to each. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable.
I've done some reading on them and know some people who are more familiar with them who agree with my assessment. Additionally, asking AI and Google just now failed to turn up a single example of a religion outside the Abrahamic family that says all disbelievers will burn in hell for all eternity.
Just remember that there are many, many small religions in Africa, South America, and Australia. I don't think Google or Wikipedia or anyone else for that matter has a good handle on the tenets of all those religions.
Those are all random tribal religions. I haven't seen any (pretty much by definition non-universalizing) tribal religions that say all disbelievers burn in hell for all eternity.
And more importantly if nothing I can access has information about the tenets of that religion how exactly am I supposed to study the religion let alone whether it's true?
How much evidence is there for divinity in Judaism? Out of the thousands of verses and the tens of thousands of traditions, how much is really strong evidence? The Kuzari Argument? The Prophecies of Deut 28-30? The handful of Torah-Science proofs from Yosef Mizrachi? Okay. How much problems does Judaism have that we have to bend over backwards to defend? A hell of a lot more! So perhaps there is a kernel of Emunah one can have, but a Just God would not punish me for making a mistake and going with the preponderance of evidence from my laymen's perspective. Therefore, I can throw away 98% of Judaism and me and ASH can debate the other 2% percent, knowing that simple disbelief is not going to get me punished by the Just God YHWH.
This sounds to me like someone who felt an overall sense of alienation. One who was raised fully orthodox would generally apply his BS meter to the secular values of the outside world. Unless something drove him to re-examine and take an outsiders perspective.
Very well put! I myself fall squarely on the side of the BS, the whole castle crumbled pretty quickly and I just stopped intellectually believing without much second guessing. (And that's without any major struggles or issues with OJ growing up)
If you want further evidence of his uncharitable nature, see his arguments that the Septuagint was changed by the church, with no evidence to back it up. Or for the fact that Psalm 22 all Hebrew manuscripts say "like a lion." That isn't true.
The reason why you need to say that Tovia meant this or meant that, is because he isn't careful himself. So you always have to check his work, and his logic.
Have you ever considered that Singer’s videos might be biased? After all, his “BS meter” seems calibrated specifically against Christianity, likely shaped by the environment he grew up in.
Doesn’t it strike you as significant that some of history's greatest minds—brilliant thinkers and geniuses—have been devout Christians? What would it be like to step into their shoes, to imagine being raised in a world where Christianity is woven into the very fabric of your life from birth? Could that not shape one’s perspective just as profoundly as being raised in a different tradition?
But beyond personal experience, we must confront the data. Isn’t it revealing how defenders of a belief almost always emerge from within that belief system? Is it truly coincidence that most passionate defenders of Judaism were born Jewish? Or that staunch advocates of the Litvish derech are overwhelmingly products of yeshivish institutions?
These patterns suggest something deeper. Is it purely chance, or does it point to how profoundly we’re shaped by the cultures and systems we are born into?
Fair points, but I don’t see how you’ve addressed the possibility that you’re biased. How can you be sure that you weren’t subconsciously looking to be impressed by Singer because of your upbringing? Just because his arguments resonate with you doesn’t mean they’re objectively compelling—it might simply be that they align with the framework you were already conditioned to accept.
Your point about Christian geniuses actually supports my argument. The only way extremely intelligent people can dismiss attacks on Christianity without even knowing Hebrew is precisely because of the power of their early indoctrination. And the same can apply to you. Indoctrination isn’t limited to one religion—it shapes everyone, regardless of the tradition they’re born into.
Many people who have questioned or rejected their faith often describe how texts, ideas, or arguments that once seemed self-evidently true—or completely absurd—now appear entirely different after re-examining them through a new lens. This shows how much our upbringing influences our perception of truth, often in ways we’re not even aware of.
Be careful with Tovia Singer. He has a lot of good arguments, but many times he is uncharitable, and we can use his own standard to the debunk Orthodox Judaism. Dr Michael Brown beat him in a debate because of that!
I'll give you one example. Tovia says that the KJVhas been corrupted Psalms 2:12 by translating it as "Kiss the Son"
However, Ibn Ezra says the same thing!
ונשקו בר – כנגד על משיחו. והנה פירוש בר, כמו: מה ברי ומה בר בטני. וכן כתוב: בני אתה ומנהג גוים בעולם לשום ידיהם תחת יד המלך כאחי שלמה, או העבד תחת ירך אדוניו, או לנשק את המלך, וזה המנהג עד היום בארץ הודו.
. . .Kiss the son against his anointed; and behold the interpretation 'How pure and also how pure my insides' (Proverbs 31:2); and it is also written 'you are my son.' It is a custom in the nations of the world to place their hands under the hand of the king as the brother of Solomon or the slave under the thigh of his master or to kiss the king. This is the custom in India to this day.
Now, is the Ibn Ezra a liar and corrupter of the Scriptures?
Tovia appeals to archaeology, history, philosophy, as well. In the debate with Brown, he brought up archaeology, and Brown had a field day applying his liberal standards to the exodus story.
Brown won because Tovia said Isaiah 53 was never interpreted by rabbinic sources as referring to Mashiach ben David, and said if Brown found one source, he'd become a Messianic Jew! Needless to say, Brown found enough sources!
This is a dumb perspective. If one adopts this perspective he will not believe in vaccines, quantum theory or behavioral economics (or a round earth for that matter).
True Emunah Chachamim is believing when a smart person says something its worth investigating, even mormonism.
My BS meter knows extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, regardless of how smart the person is who believes the extraordinary claim. Vaccines, quantum theory and behavioral economics are extraordinary claims but they also have extraordinary evidence which is why I instinctively know they're true.
Derech agav, your version of emunas chachamim sounds a lot like the appeal to authority fallacy.
There's no way you could instinctively know something that requires extraordinary evidence. My BS meter is going off on that!
I think you're missing my point. I don't think you instinctively know something that requires extraordinary evidence. I think many people, including myself, can instinctively recognize when an extraordinary claim has extraordinary evidence like the earth spinning and revolving around the sun, and should be accepted. They can also recognize when an extraordinary claim does not have extraordinary evidence like Joseph Smith meeting Moroni in the forest of upstate NY, or Jesus rising from the dead, and should be rejected.
How would you know whether Jesus rising from the dead has extraordinary evidence without the slightest clue what the arguments are?
The same way one can know that the earth revolving around the sun has a ton of evidence without the slightest clue what the arguments are.
I don't get this. You presumably believe that because of your trust in the scientists. Let's suppose you didn't trust the scientists. You claim you'd know there's ton of evidence without the slightest clue what this evidence is even without trusting scientists?
I like how you so clearly stated that those who are outsiders immediately laugh at foreign god apologetics. Reminds me of when Sam Harris was using Poseidon as a foil to mock religion, only to receive hate mail from people upset at him for blaspheming Poseidon.
But I'm with Ash here that going with your gut is also not a good way to determine truth. Type 1 and type 2 errors require more than authority to identify, but also more than one's intuition.
You just gave yourself a lot of work to do investigating all the truth claims ever made by smart people. Meet back here in a few hundred years?
Some claims need a short amount of investigation. But yes, I try to investigate claims that come to my attention.
I trust my own investigation less than I trust consensus of experts a lot of the time. the amount of knowledge i need to know to have an informed opinion about a lot of topics is so large that I am always reasonably concerned that I’m missing something
That's a fair point and one I agree with but it's not one op made
Yeah I was just responding to this little side thread about investigating my own claims. I don’t even view trusting experts as a heuristic, rather the best epistemological tool I have.
Absolutely. Of what vialue is your belief on anything.You go with the flow intil your dead,injured,broke etc..It might seem easier but your like a flower in the wind with no content. Remind me of a cow
Chewing it's cud.
You're comparing things for which we have good evidence to things for which we have bad evidence. Skepticism is like reason. You can never be too reasonable and you can never be too skeptical, because it's defines as "applying sufficient reasonable demand for evidence when it's warranted."
So it's not warranted to question the findings of science like it is to question the "findings" of a rabbi. There's nothing to observe about religion, so what are we measuring and what are we finding? The rules are made up and the game is made up, but in science, the findings are real and repeatable.
I think we'd both agree to that. The issue is the conclusion - because Science does not work by religion hence religion is untrue. If religion is tapping into some sort of spiritual dimension, then you would not expect science to be able to measure it. Just because science cannot measure something beyond it's realm doesn't mean said thing doesn't exist. And the preponderance of evidence from this believing in religion and reaching that realm suggests that it does.
>>>If religion is tapping into some sort of spiritual dimension, then you would not expect science to be able to measure it.
You say this, and it's a good point. I hear it from the side of religion and it's important that no one thinks that science just ignores this question. But there's a very good answer.
If you can't measure it, how do you know it's there? This is the exact same as saying that we need to bury people with money or else they won't be able to cross the bridge to the next world. And they will also need a coat because it gets chilly up in heaven with all that drop in air pressure. And a dog, because they'll need something to guard and protect them from the heavenly marauders who seek to mess around with them while waiting in line to cross the bridge, etc. You're jumping too quickly to responding to the claim (as though it boasts substance) rather than evaluating the claim to see if it has any merit whatsoever.
It may seem very convincing to say that there's just something that we can't measure but we also can't prove it's not there and so let's just do this so we'll be safe in case it is true. That works when one has been raised only in Orthodox Judaism and knows only Orthodox Judaism. But when you learn about all the other nonsense religions, you learn that to be safe from all the what-abouts you can list would mean to do so many countless things, and no one seems to be concerned about fulfilling the rules and guidelines of the Maori other than the Maori. No one is concerned about the nonsense future world concerns of the Cherokee. This amounts to a simple case of denominator neglect.
I think it's quite bizarre to refer to anything in religion as "a preponderance of evidence." Rather, there's essentially no evidence at all. It's all just people gripping so tightly to the stories they so much want to be true.
Besides for your main point I think this is touching on a nekudah that helps explain something important, people who had significant negative experiences from their participation in the community find it much easier to reach this madragah. Which explains why people who have trauma are far more likely to leave. Their trauma does not cause them to have doubts about the age of the universe, it allows them to have a kefirah pashuta
Amazing. Going to refer to myself now as a “blunt force Apikores” 😂
But also, growing up in the system can itself be deeply traumatizing for people who don’t naturally fit in a high control environment.
That is a fascinating take.
I notice both aspects in myself. As far as my actions are concerned, I have reached the "madregah" of "kefira peshuta" which might be a result of the dysfunction Judaism caused me. In my mind however, I have not gotten to that level of completer closure.
Don’t worry, you could still get there. I always admired my Sphardi neighbours for their emunah peshuta, and by now, some of it has rubbed off on me. However, some of their kids go OTD anyway. So watch out. Your kids could become serious BT’s, just to rebel.
Do you admire your Muslim neighbors for their emunah pshuta too?
Also, weird comment about his kids.
It’s called irony.
Ouch
I’m also serious. You never know what your kids are going to do…
Beautiful. I think you’re hitting on something central here which is why I see you’ve immediately touched a nerve.
We were davka taught to not trust our intuition. It was in the same category as sexual desire… something to be conquered by the mind. The mind was something they could control. As long as they could convince you to ignore your heart (which unfortunately is done using fear and shame - that’s where the abuse happens), they could keep you playing in their mental arena, where the burden is on you to disprove their truth claim and way of life.
Don’t need to disprove anything once you’ve conquered the fear and shame program and accepted the social consequences, you’re free. No burden. Porek ol…. deep breath of freedom. Not ironic that that’s the biggest sin and comes with the biggest social price. 😉
This reminds me of Woody Allen's memorable line: “There’s no way to prove that there is no God. You just have to take it on faith.”.
Btw, for clarification, are you referring to the Torah's miracle claims? Chazal's take? The ritual requirements? Its ethical system? All of revelation? God Himself?
I'm honestly not sure as I can't fully get into the mind of kefirah peshuta. My brain is still wired to go through everything written about each claim and the back and forth and everything. If you're asking what I personally believe that's a different question but I didn't get to my beliefs through instinct but through hours upon hours of reading and pondering.
I appreciate this perspective. However, I disagree. I don't think out instinct/gut is reliable enough. We should at least to a basic research into basic ideas of episemology to where we can justify our position when the consequences are so important.
I actually have told me frum friends for years, even when I was frum, that it would be silly to not even look at Christainity since so many brilliant mids believe in its truth claims. That doesn't mean you need learn everything about it. But at least research the main arguments for it and reflect on your opinion about it.
To justify a major life decision by just trusting your gut seems silly to me. But maybe your gut has proven to be more reliable than my gut has shown to me.
It's super intuitive that there is a G-d, a meaning to life and life after death, which is why religion has been practically a universal part of human civilization for millennia. It is very unnatural to reject these, which is why atheist philosophy relies on excessive rationalization of everything in life and scientism rather than "kefira peshuta".
You don’t get to choose what’s intuitive for others. That’s not how intuition works.
I don't think the Torah itself shares your intuition that life has ultimate meaning.
Although I haven't learned in a while, I don't remember a universal statement about the meaning of life. While the Torah contains laws, narratives, and a covenant between God and Israel, these primarily focus on obedience, blessings, and avoiding punishment. The idea of a "relationship with God" is often framed in terms of following commandments to gain divine favor or avert curses. If the purpose of life is simply to obey God for protection or rewards, it reduces meaning to a transactional arrangement, not something inherently valuable.
I am aware that the oral law and Kabbalah do speak about this. But I guess we have to add this to the list of foundational ideas that the Chumash "forgot" to mention.
Even if one argues that having a relationship with God is meaningful, we must ask: why is that meaningful beyond the promised benefits or avoiding suffering? Without these incentives, the relationship lacks intrinsic appeal. This suggests that any "meaning" derived from the Torah is ultimately rooted in securing physical pleasure, other-worldly orgasmic spiritual pleasure, safety, or avoidance of harm—concepts that really align well with the atheistic framework Sam Harris outlines in his book, "The Moral Landscape", where morality and purpose are grounded in well-being. If that's the case, the Torah doesn't offer unique meaning but instead provides a historical, culturally specific pathway to what is essentially a universal human desire for security and pleasure.
The intuition is that there is meaning beyond pain and pleasure. This is the clear implication everywhere in the Torah, starting from Bereishis when G-d says נעשה אדם בצלמינו, and in which the entire Creation is implied to be for humanity. This theme continues with the special relationship between G-d and the Avos, and then their descendants, Yisrael, who G-d forges an eternal covenant with to be a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. All the reward and punishment in the Torah is in the context of this relationship.
Even if the entire creation is for humanity, that alone does not reveal the meaning or purpose of living as a human. The relationship, covenant, and designation of being a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש merely define a special connection between God and Israel, distinguishing them from other nations with their own deities. Nowhere in the Torah, however, is the ultimate point or purpose of this relationship made explicit. The Torah describes roles and responsibilities but stops short of addressing the "why" of existence.
Furthermore, claiming there is meaning beyond pain and pleasure leads to an infinite regress: if the purpose of life is something beyond well-being, we must then ask why that purpose is meaningful, and so on without end. This is why Sam Harris’s view that life’s purpose is rooted in well-being—maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering which are real tangible experiences—resonates. Even intuitions about accomplishment and productivity are tied to the sense of satisfaction or fulfillment they bring, which are ultimately forms of pleasure.
The real reason the Chumash doesn’t explicitly address these philosophical questions about life’s purpose is likely historical. Its authors lived in a time where survival and securing basic necessities were paramount, leaving little space to contemplate abstract ideas about meaning. The concept of searching for meaning emerged much later with Greek philosophy, which is why the first book in the Tanach to grapple with such existential questions is Koheles, written after exposure to Greek thought and not, as tradition suggests, by Shlomo.
If you're judging from history, it seems far more intuitive that there are multiple Gods with human tendencies and failings, which is still the position of Hinduism, the world's third largest religion. I don't why you choose your version of God.
But I think even by today's standard your intuition is off.
Many people have an intuition that there is SOMETHING beyond time and space which science can't explain. But the essence of that thing is totally unknown.
Correct, multiple gods with human failings is far more intuitive than atheism. It might even be more intuitive than monotheism, if we were going by "kefira peshuta" alone, which the OP favors.
Annnnnnd we’ve arrived at the inevitable intellectual argument over what is most intuitive. Can’t make this stuff up.
That's exactly my point!
Your version of God is not intuitive at all. And if you remember your Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam says that understanding your version of God is so unintuitive that even Moshe and Shlomo had no more understanding of it than the most foolish of fools.
Who says not intuitive at all? The point is it's more intuitive than no G-d.
The Rambam.
He's not saying the existence of G-d is unintuitive. He's not even saying that polytheism is more intuitive (although that's likely). He's *definitely* not saying that atheism is more intuitive. He's saying the nature of G-d is unintuitive.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/#:~:text=Even%20though%20Hinduism%20is%20sometimes,and%2054%25%20among%20Jains). Only 7% of Hindus are polytheists.
"It's super intuitive that there is a G-d"
Not so sure about this. I think among Buddhists who make no doctrinal claims about the matter only 40-80% of Buddhists believe in God depending on the culture https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/09/12/religious-beliefs-3/#:~:text=Belief%20in%20God,-Nearly%20all%20respondents&text=However%2C%20Buddhists%20are%20less%20likely,compared%20with%2080%25%20of%20Buddhists.. That's probably the closest we'd get to a blank-slate poll on the question.
If by God you mean absolutely simple divine unity where God's willpower is identical to his knowledge I think very few people would find that intuitive at all and would find it very difficult to even comprehend.
I think secular Buddhism is a pretty recent thing that is happening alongside growing secularism in general. I bet 100 years ago most Buddhists believed in G-d.
Even in Malaysia (where basically everyone believes in God) it's only 82% which is a clear majority but far from 95%+
You can be a Kofer while believing in God, in a meaning to life, and life after death. In fact, I believe in God, and yes I believe in a meaning of life. There is no contradiction to science or philosophy that denies ancient written sources. I don't believe in the stories said about Romulus and Remus, even though I'm not expert in them. I have Kefirah Peshuta that a man didn't fly up to heaven in a whirlwind during a public gathering. I have Kefira Peshuta that in 34 CE, the Native Americans didn't see Jesus as described in the book of Mormon. The same is for the Irish myths of their origns of wars with divine beings, and the Sumerians who thought their ealierst kings ruled for tens of thousands of years. I don't believe the Aztecs heard the voice of their god address them, not did they all see the vision of whiteness at Tenochtitlan. Obviously myth and legend developed from something real, and we can find kernels of historical truth in these stories, But ultimately, Kefira Peshuta works.
Guys, this is getting out of hand. I'm going to remove these insulting comments. Please take your intense spat to a private chat.
Ok sorry
"I don’t feel the need to research the back-and-forth about every religion. I don’t need to study the best proofs for Christianity and then weigh the counterarguments. I just know — instinctively — that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and isn’t the son of God. I don’t need to read about the historical evidence for the resurrection or the apologetics of C.S. Lewis to reject Christianity. My gut tells me it’s not true, and that’s enough."
There's only two other religions that say you're damned if you don't believe them. It's only 2 more to research. Let's say you devote 6 months, 10 hours a week to each. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable.
How do you know that only two religions say that?
I'm pretty sure that there are thousands of religions.
Name the religions outside the Abrahamic family that say that.
Oh, I can't do that.
But in order to be sure you'd at least have to find out what they say.
I've done some reading on them and know some people who are more familiar with them who agree with my assessment. Additionally, asking AI and Google just now failed to turn up a single example of a religion outside the Abrahamic family that says all disbelievers will burn in hell for all eternity.
Just remember that there are many, many small religions in Africa, South America, and Australia. I don't think Google or Wikipedia or anyone else for that matter has a good handle on the tenets of all those religions.
Those are all random tribal religions. I haven't seen any (pretty much by definition non-universalizing) tribal religions that say all disbelievers burn in hell for all eternity.
And more importantly if nothing I can access has information about the tenets of that religion how exactly am I supposed to study the religion let alone whether it's true?
My Kefira Peshuta goes like this:
How much evidence is there for divinity in Judaism? Out of the thousands of verses and the tens of thousands of traditions, how much is really strong evidence? The Kuzari Argument? The Prophecies of Deut 28-30? The handful of Torah-Science proofs from Yosef Mizrachi? Okay. How much problems does Judaism have that we have to bend over backwards to defend? A hell of a lot more! So perhaps there is a kernel of Emunah one can have, but a Just God would not punish me for making a mistake and going with the preponderance of evidence from my laymen's perspective. Therefore, I can throw away 98% of Judaism and me and ASH can debate the other 2% percent, knowing that simple disbelief is not going to get me punished by the Just God YHWH.
Lol
This sounds to me like someone who felt an overall sense of alienation. One who was raised fully orthodox would generally apply his BS meter to the secular values of the outside world. Unless something drove him to re-examine and take an outsiders perspective.
Very well put! I myself fall squarely on the side of the BS, the whole castle crumbled pretty quickly and I just stopped intellectually believing without much second guessing. (And that's without any major struggles or issues with OJ growing up)
If you want further evidence of his uncharitable nature, see his arguments that the Septuagint was changed by the church, with no evidence to back it up. Or for the fact that Psalm 22 all Hebrew manuscripts say "like a lion." That isn't true.
The reason why you need to say that Tovia meant this or meant that, is because he isn't careful himself. So you always have to check his work, and his logic.
Do you think intuition is a good epistemic tool?
Have you ever considered that Singer’s videos might be biased? After all, his “BS meter” seems calibrated specifically against Christianity, likely shaped by the environment he grew up in.
Doesn’t it strike you as significant that some of history's greatest minds—brilliant thinkers and geniuses—have been devout Christians? What would it be like to step into their shoes, to imagine being raised in a world where Christianity is woven into the very fabric of your life from birth? Could that not shape one’s perspective just as profoundly as being raised in a different tradition?
But beyond personal experience, we must confront the data. Isn’t it revealing how defenders of a belief almost always emerge from within that belief system? Is it truly coincidence that most passionate defenders of Judaism were born Jewish? Or that staunch advocates of the Litvish derech are overwhelmingly products of yeshivish institutions?
These patterns suggest something deeper. Is it purely chance, or does it point to how profoundly we’re shaped by the cultures and systems we are born into?
Fair points, but I don’t see how you’ve addressed the possibility that you’re biased. How can you be sure that you weren’t subconsciously looking to be impressed by Singer because of your upbringing? Just because his arguments resonate with you doesn’t mean they’re objectively compelling—it might simply be that they align with the framework you were already conditioned to accept.
Your point about Christian geniuses actually supports my argument. The only way extremely intelligent people can dismiss attacks on Christianity without even knowing Hebrew is precisely because of the power of their early indoctrination. And the same can apply to you. Indoctrination isn’t limited to one religion—it shapes everyone, regardless of the tradition they’re born into.
Many people who have questioned or rejected their faith often describe how texts, ideas, or arguments that once seemed self-evidently true—or completely absurd—now appear entirely different after re-examining them through a new lens. This shows how much our upbringing influences our perception of truth, often in ways we’re not even aware of.
Be careful with Tovia Singer. He has a lot of good arguments, but many times he is uncharitable, and we can use his own standard to the debunk Orthodox Judaism. Dr Michael Brown beat him in a debate because of that!
I'll give you one example. Tovia says that the KJVhas been corrupted Psalms 2:12 by translating it as "Kiss the Son"
However, Ibn Ezra says the same thing!
ונשקו בר – כנגד על משיחו. והנה פירוש בר, כמו: מה ברי ומה בר בטני. וכן כתוב: בני אתה ומנהג גוים בעולם לשום ידיהם תחת יד המלך כאחי שלמה, או העבד תחת ירך אדוניו, או לנשק את המלך, וזה המנהג עד היום בארץ הודו.
. . .Kiss the son against his anointed; and behold the interpretation 'How pure and also how pure my insides' (Proverbs 31:2); and it is also written 'you are my son.' It is a custom in the nations of the world to place their hands under the hand of the king as the brother of Solomon or the slave under the thigh of his master or to kiss the king. This is the custom in India to this day.
Now, is the Ibn Ezra a liar and corrupter of the Scriptures?
Tovia appeals to archaeology, history, philosophy, as well. In the debate with Brown, he brought up archaeology, and Brown had a field day applying his liberal standards to the exodus story.
Brown won because Tovia said Isaiah 53 was never interpreted by rabbinic sources as referring to Mashiach ben David, and said if Brown found one source, he'd become a Messianic Jew! Needless to say, Brown found enough sources!